Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Geological Timescale is Fiction whose only reality is stacks of rock
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(4)
Message 106 of 1257 (788036)
07-25-2016 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
07-25-2016 1:41 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
The soil is completely fictional. There is no evidence for it. The actual evidence is the flat straight contact lines between strata as seen in photo after photo after photo.
It's has been said several times in several ways by people on this thread. I'm trying to work out how to put this as simply as I can, to see if I can get you to address the actual science, instead of your notion that rock strata form on top of rock strata.
What happens is this - soil strata form on top of soil strata. (Just like the soil on top of the soil that the Roman villas are found in here). All of those strata get buried over time, and then, when the conditions are right, the strata get compressed and turned from soil into rock strata, all together, one on top of each other. Does that make it clearer ? The soil is there, on top of other layers of soil, and they all get turned into rock together, one on top of the other.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 1:41 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 4:20 AM vimesey has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 107 of 1257 (788037)
07-25-2016 3:58 AM


The maps
As I said earlier:
The same maps and more information can be found
here
And the situation is really simple.
1) the maps have two elements, a physical map representing the area as it was at some point during the geological period and an outline of the modern continent
2) the outline of the modern continent is there so we can relate modern geography to past geography.
3) if we do this for the Triassic map, we see that the area currently occupied by the Chinle formation was on land, and the volcanoes are in the wrong place to be the Rockies. The ocean to the west of the volcanoes is still ocean today.
It's really that simple.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 4:10 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 108 of 1257 (788038)
07-25-2016 4:03 AM


RETHINKING THE NORTH AMERICAN PALEOGEOGRAPHY
OK, I realized I must be having a problem with my vision so I went where there is more light and studied the maps again. What I see now is that I couldn't see the outline of the continent at all in some places, particularly along the west coast. It didn't exist for me because I couldn't see the faint outline. I had kept trying to visualize where I thought the coast should be, but got it wrong. I had darkened some of the other faint lines where I could see them, along the shallow seas on the Jurassic and Cretaceous maps, for instance, and the east coast for instance, but the outline marking the west coast was completely invisible to me. So now where I could see it I marked it in darker ink, but there are still some areas that I can't see at all, though just short stretches here and there that shouldn't cause a problem.
I also compared these maps to current maps so I could sketch in where the Rockies are today and the Colorado Plateau.
SO, this changes my understanding of the maps.
First of all the volcanoes are not along either the Rockies or the Sierras, but what would become the west coast itself, described in the text as an "island arc." They are surrounded by deep ocean on all these maps.
Second, there are no mountains in the Triassic, though in the Jurassic and Cretaceous the area identified as mountains is in the region of the Sierras, not the Rockies, so I had that wrong.
In the Triassic there is a band that runs along the edge of the ocean water, making up the coastline of that time period, that is not dry land but labeled "sandy and muddy bottom." This is west of the areas that became the Rockies and the Colorado Plateau, putting the majority of the dinosaur fossil beds such as in the Chinle Formation in the dry area east of the coastal muddy belt (although it looks like it's possible that belt might overlap some of the Chinle Formation in Nevada -- can't tell.)
So in the Triassic it appears that the dinosaurs aren't threatened by either ocean water or the epeiric sea, and can roam freely on dry land, and I apologize for getting all this wrong.
HOWEVER, on the Jurassic and Cretaceous maps the epeiric sea completely covers the land east of those mountains of the Sierra Nevada area all the way to the Great Lakes, so in these time periods it does appear that the dinosaurs have been deprived of livable land unless they lived in the mountain area of the Sierras which is the only area in the west that is above water. I've never heard of dinosaurs being described as living in mountains, but if you want to claim it there it is, only you have to move them off the Great Plains which are inundated by first the Sundance Sea and then the Cretaceous Inland Seaway, and you'll have to explain how we have so many nonaquatic dinosaur fossils buried in that part of the country that was under water for a great deal of the time.
So, not in the Triassic, but in the Jurassic and Cretaceous it still looks to me like there is a big problem for dinosaurs.
I look forward to the next episode of the Great Dinosaur Fossil Mystery.

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2016 4:17 AM Faith has replied
 Message 119 by Pressie, posted 07-25-2016 7:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 109 of 1257 (788039)
07-25-2016 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by PaulK
07-25-2016 3:58 AM


Re: The maps
Yes you are right, as I just posted, but there's more to it that you didn't mention.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2016 3:58 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 110 of 1257 (788040)
07-25-2016 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
07-25-2016 4:03 AM


Re: RETHINKING THE NORTH AMERICAN PALEOGEOGRAPHY
Faith, thank you for having the honesty to admit that you were wrong.
quote:
HOWEVER, on the Jurassic and Cretaceous maps the epeiric sea completely covers the land east of those mountains of the Sierra Nevada area all the way to the Great Lakes, so in these time periods it does appear that the dinosaurs have been deprived of livable land unless they lived in the mountain area of the Sierras which is the only area in the west that is above water. I've never heard of dinosaurs being described as living in mountains, but if you want to claim it there it is, only you have to move them off the Great Plains which are inundated by first the Sundance Sea and then the Cretaceous Inland Seaway, and you'll have to explain how we have so many nonaquatic dinosaur fossils buried in that part of the country that was under water for a great deal of the time.
Dinosaurs were a very successful and varied group living all over the world. It would be surprising if dinosaurs did not live in the mountains.
I'll also point out that the map also has a large land mass to the East which seems a more likely destination for retreating dinosaurs.
Nevertheless, it seems that the problem as stated is no problem at all. Dinosaur fossils would typically be found in the formations being deposited at the time of their death. These formations are terrestrial, so the dinosaurs lived in the area when it was land, and not when it was sea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 4:03 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 4:49 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 111 of 1257 (788041)
07-25-2016 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by vimesey
07-25-2016 2:16 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
The soil is completely fictional. There is no evidence for it. The actual evidence is the flat straight contact lines between strata as seen in photo after photo after photo.
It's has been said several times in several ways by people on this thread. I'm trying to work out how to put this as simply as I can, to see if I can get you to address the actual science, instead of your notion that rock strata form on top of rock strata.
I believe I HAVE addressed it, by identifying it as a fiction. If science embraces a fiction, as the historical sciences often do, I'm not going to address it as actuality but as the fiction it really is.
What happens is this - soil strata form on top of soil strata.
Shouldn't you call it "sediment" rather than "soil?"
(Just like the soil on top of the soil that the Roman villas are found in here).
Yes I believe it IS soil that has buried buildings and the many settlements that archaeologists have to deal with. But the strata are mostly sediments that become sedimentary rock.
All of those strata get buried over time, and then, when the conditions are right, the strata get compressed and turned from soil into rock strata, all together, one on top of each other.
Yes that pretty much states the current theory.
Does that make it clearer ?
The OE theory has never been unclear, except that whenever I tried to describe it someone would tell me I got it wrong. I didn't but they said I did. Your scenario is a version of it. I disagree with the scenario of course.
The soil is there, on top of other layers of soil, and they all get turned into rock together, one on top of the other.
And where and when does the landscape develop in which the fossils in the rock supposedly lived?
But the strata often have tight contacts between them and no loose soil at all between the layers, just to repeat that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by vimesey, posted 07-25-2016 2:16 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by vimesey, posted 07-25-2016 4:38 AM Faith has replied
 Message 182 by ooh-child, posted 07-26-2016 1:44 PM Faith has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 112 of 1257 (788042)
07-25-2016 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
07-25-2016 4:20 AM


Re: How we get from rock to landscape to rock, that's the question
Shouldn't you call it "sediment" rather than "soil?"
Absolutely - but I was replying to a quotation in which you referred to soil, and I was trying to keep things straightforward. You use "soil" in the quotation I'm going to address next, however, so I'll stick with it, for ease of progressing the discussion. It doesn't make much difference for the purposes of the point I'm making.
But the strata often have tight contacts between them and no loose soil at all between the layers, just to repeat that.
And to repeat, the strata themselves were the loose soil. They rested, one on top of the other, as layers of soil. (Or sediment, if you prefer). There was no loose layer of soil in between - they were layers of soil on top of each other. They then got lithified into layers of rock on top of each other. Layers of rock are what layers of lithified soil look like.
Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 4:20 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 07-28-2016 7:02 PM vimesey has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 113 of 1257 (788043)
07-25-2016 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by PaulK
07-25-2016 4:17 AM


Re: RETHINKING THE NORTH AMERICAN PALEOGEOGRAPHY
Yes you can claim the east as their retreat zone if you like but you still have the problem of explaining all the fossil beds in the area inundated by water for so much of the time period during which those fossil beds formed. Also, correct me if I'm wrong but dinosaur fossils are pretty rare in the eastern USA.
And of course they would have had to have lived in those areas when it was land and not sea, but judging from the chart on p. 202 of the textbook being referenced, a chart of the "Cratonic Sequences of North America," it would have been sea most of the time in the Triassic and just about the entire period of the Jurassic. But I could be wrong about this since I find it hard to interpret the chart.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2016 4:17 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2016 4:58 AM Faith has replied
 Message 129 by jar, posted 07-25-2016 11:00 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 114 of 1257 (788044)
07-25-2016 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
07-25-2016 4:49 AM


Re: RETHINKING THE NORTH AMERICAN PALEOGEOGRAPHY
quote:
Yes you can claim the east as their retreat zone if you like but you still have the problem of explaining all the fossil beds in the area inundated by water for so much of the time period during which those fossil beds formed
As I've already pointed out, the area wasn't inundated by water during the period when the the fossil beds were formed. How often do I have to point this out ?
quote:
And of course they would have had to have lived in those areas when it was land and not sea, but judging from the chart on p. 202 of the textbook being referenced, a chart of the "Cratonic Sequences of North America," it would have been sea most of the time in the Triassic and just about the entire period of the Jurassic. But I could be wrong about this since I find it hard to interpret the chart.
As I hope you will understand, the local geology is a better indicator of local conditions at the time than a chart which will almost certainly have far lower resolution in terms of both the geography and the timescale. Now if you can show a lot of terrestrial dinosaurs distributed through marine geology you might have something, but if the dinosaur fossils are in terrestrial rocks then it's pretty clear that the area was land when they lived.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 4:49 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 5:10 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 8:10 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 115 of 1257 (788045)
07-25-2016 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by PaulK
07-25-2016 4:58 AM


Re: RETHINKING THE NORTH AMERICAN PALEOGEOGRAPHY
As I've already pointed out, the area wasn't inundated by water during the period when the the fossil beds were formed. How often do I have to point this out ?
How could you know this from the information being discussed?
And besides wouldn't we want to know when the dinosaurs had dry land to live on rather than when the fossil beds were formed?
Now if you can show a lot of terrestrial dinosaurs distributed through marine geology you might have something, but if the dinosaur fossils are in terrestrial rocks then it's pretty clear that the area was land when they lived.
Seems to me "a lot of terrestrial dinosaurs distributed through marine geology" has been shown.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2016 4:58 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2016 5:27 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 116 of 1257 (788046)
07-25-2016 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
07-25-2016 5:10 AM


Re: RETHINKING THE NORTH AMERICAN PALEOGEOGRAPHY
quote:
How could you know this from the information being discussed?
I know that it is true of the Chinle, Morrison and Kaiparowits formations, the fossils I've seen described for the Sundance formation are marine. Perhaps I am jumping the gun, but it seems a pretty safe assumption.
quote:
And besides wouldn't we want to know when the dinosaurs had dry land to live on rather than when the fossil beds were formed?
What's the difference ? As I pointed out the dinosaurs that became fossils would typically be buried in the sediment being deposited around the time that they died. Thus that sediment is the best guide to conditions at that time.
quote:
Seems to me "a lot of terrestrial dinosaurs distributed through marine geology" has been shown.
Which marine formations have many dinosaur fossils in ? The Chinle formation is not marine. The Morrison formation is not marine. The Kaiparowits formation is not marine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 5:10 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 07-28-2016 7:20 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 117 of 1257 (788049)
07-25-2016 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
07-23-2016 2:50 AM


Re: Second cartoon from OP removed
Faith writes:
I'm going to remove that cartoon because it isn't conveying what it was meant to convey,...
Isn't it some creationist hypothesis that the earth was flatter before the magic flood?
Your cartoon represented their 'thinking'. Then you pretended that was 'scientific' thinking.Then you put up a straw man pretending that it's 'science'. No wonder you took it away. You're very dishonest, Faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 07-23-2016 2:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 8:20 AM Pressie has replied

  
14174dm
Member (Idle past 1108 days)
Posts: 161
From: Cincinnati OH
Joined: 10-12-2015


Message 118 of 1257 (788050)
07-25-2016 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Faith
07-25-2016 1:38 AM


Re: a definite contradiction
Your claim is that the Chinle Formation is a marine deposit based on the graphics in a text book.
Based on other sources, the whole Chinle Formation WAS NOT under water. The Wikipedia article specifically uses terms that contradict marine deposition - fluvial, lucastrine, etc.
If you are using two sources - Wikipedia and your text book - that contradict each other, you need to check other sources to confirm one or the other.
I found, in a few seconds, multiple sources directly discussing the actual geology of the formation. They describe strata formed by braided streams including pebbles and cobbles that would not be found in marine sediments.
So maybe your text book is painting with too broad a brush for what you are trying to use the information for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 1:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 119 of 1257 (788051)
07-25-2016 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
07-25-2016 4:03 AM


Re: RETHINKING THE NORTH AMERICAN PALEOGEOGRAPHY
Faith writes:
Second, there are no mountains in the Triassic
There were huge, huge mountains during the Triassic in parts where South Africa is now. For example, the mountains of the Cape fold belt were a lot higher during the Triassic than they are now. We only see the remnants still around today. And they still are quite high.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 07-25-2016 4:03 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 120 of 1257 (788052)
07-25-2016 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by PaulK
07-25-2016 4:58 AM


Re: RETHINKING THE NORTH AMERICAN PALEOGEOGRAPHY
As I've already pointed out, the area wasn't inundated by water during the period when the the fossil beds were formed. How often do I have to point this out ?
Probably many times. I don't always get to read every post and if it doesn't make sense to me right away the less likely it is that I'll read it but go on to one I can deal with more immediately. You for instance started talking about the Sundance Sea and the Sundance formation at a time when I couldn't see any reason for it. Sorry but the nature of this debate is that it's one against many and you may have to accept that I may not have read the stuff you think you've pointed out to me many times. There's no point in upbraiding me as you and some others do.
However, isn't this an odd thing to say, that "the area wasn't inundated by water during the period when the fossil beds were formed," because these shallow seas are usually invoked to explain the deposition of a particular layer or formation, meaning the fossil beds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2016 4:58 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2016 8:19 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 123 by Pressie, posted 07-25-2016 8:32 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024